MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2149399014 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2012.05.1443

P3‐221: The MoCA‐S test in low‐education populations: Colombia experience

2012· article· en· W2149399014 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carmen‐Lucía Curcio, Marı́a Victoria Zunzunegui, Beatriz Alvarado, Ángeles García

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentDementiaGerontologyCognitionPopulationFormal educationMedicineTest (biology)Cognitive impairmentPsychologyDemographyPsychiatryInternal medicineDiseaseSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is used to help differentiate normal cognitive aging from Mild Cognitive Impairment and dementia, however, the effects of years of education are only minimally taken into consideration. We have investigated the use of the Spanish version (MoCA-S) in a population with little or no formal education in the Andes Mountains of Colombia, to assess the impact of education on scores. The population was screened for dementia using the Leganes Cognitive Test (LCT) developed for populations with none/few years of education. One hundred and fifty community-dwelling subjects aged 65 to 74 years old were recruited at elderly community social centers. They had a mean of 4.8 (SD ± 3.5) years of education. The MoCA-S and the LCT were administered by trained interviewers. The association between the MoCA-S total score and its sub-scores by cognitive domain, and the years of education were examined by ANOVA in the 150 subjects and in the “free of dementia” subjects (n=126) group. Twenty-four persons (16%) tested positive on LCT screening for dementia. MoCA-S scores varied significantly depending on education in the whole sample and in those without dementia. In the whole population, including those who screened positive for dementia, the mean MoCA score was 17.61 (±4.9). By educational achievement, MoCA scores were 16.16 (±4.34) for those without completing primary school or illiterate (n=74), 18.28 (±4.53) among those with primary school (n=46), and 20.13 (±5.82) among those with more than primary school (n=30). There were significant differences by education in the total score (P<0.001) and the subscores for executive function-visuospatial tasks (P<0.008), language fluency (P<0.007), verbal abstraction (P<0.001), and serial substraction (P<0.001). Similar results were found in the “no-dementia” group. Orientation, delayed recall and language (repeat sentences) were less influenced by education. Scores from the MoCA-S test are strongly dependent on education achievement among elderly Colombians with no or few years of education. Very low educational achievement and illiteracy must be considered when interpreting the MoCA scores given the high error rate on items that depend on culture and the ability to read and write.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→